# Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Mammoth Constructors, LLC

> District Court, M.D. Florida · February 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10111986

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** February 3, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10111986

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating a “party must list the citizenships of all the members of the” LLC
- explaining difference between residence and citizenship (i.e., domicile)

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

AMERISURE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-67-SPC-NPM

MAMMOTH CONSTUCTORS,
LLC and BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY,

Defendants.
/
ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company’s
Complaint, in which it seeks declarations about an insurance policy at issue in
an underlying state court suit. (Doc. 1).
Because Plaintiff brings this diversity action, it has the burden on
jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th Cir.
2000). Proceeding in federal court, it must show the parties are completely
diverse with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a);
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). And

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not
responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
district courts are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168

F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff has not properly plead the citizenship of Defendant Mammoth
Constructors, LLC to show the requisite diversity. A limited liability
company— like Mammoth—is a citizen of every state in which one of its

members is a citizen. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings
L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). So each LLC member must be
diverse. Because a limited liability company is a citizen of every member’s
state, a pleading must identify each of its members and their citizenship.

Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at 1022 (stating a “party must list the citizenships of
all the members of the” LLC). The Complaint here doesn’t do so.
For Mammoth, the Complaint only alleges the principal address and its
registered agent’s location. That’s not enough. Without identifying

Mammoth’s members and their domiciles, the Court cannot conclude diversity
exists. See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013)
(explaining difference between residence and citizenship (i.e., domicile)). So
the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff may amend to

adequately plead subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C § 1653.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff may FILE an amended complaint on or before February 10,
2023. Failure to do so will cause the Court to close this case
without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 3, 20238.

, Lh platrath< 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10111986. Public record. Not legal advice.